Skip to main content
Glama

Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Ban member in Skool

skool_ban_member
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ban member in the user's own Skool account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Skool step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Skool Cloud Browser. Skool's official API: Skool has no public API and no developer docs (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "skool_ban_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description excels here by clarifying that it 'Returns how to do it' and 'opens nothing by itself.' This defines the tool as a planning/instruction-giving utility, not a direct, transactional API call, which is essential context beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient and front-loads the core function. The secondary clauses about AI agents and API status are informative but slightly dilute the primary instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity of the Skool ecosystem (no public API, relying on UI automation), the description is surprisingly complete. It correctly identifies the lack of developer docs and the functional constraint that it provides instructions for manual completion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since there are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not add specific meaning to the missing parameters as none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The purpose is clearly stated as banning a member in Skool. However, it adds a crucial layer of complexity by defining the execution method (returning instructions) rather than simply stating the action, which is a minor deduction from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While it describes *what* the tool does, it fails to provide clear guidance on when the agent should use this instruction tool versus the surrounding set of browser automation tools (e.g., cotlet_browser_*). There are no explicit 'when' or 'when not' scenarios provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.